[Akoue]

I thought the point I was trying to make we relatively clear and straightforward, but apparently I was mistaken so I'll have another crack at it.

That may be what is held to be the case in your denomination, but you cannot extrapolate that for all professing Christians outside of your denomination

See now, I wasn't aligning myself with a denomination in anything I said. I was trying to help those interested in doing so better to understand the language used in Scripture and by the early Church. So let me sharpen by point a bit so that it won't be misunderstood this time: If you want to claim to be faithful to Scripture, then you have to use words the same way they are used in Scripture (words like "faith" and "belief", among others). My point is that you are not doing so: You are foisting onto Scripture a sense for its own terminology that is alien to it, that is distinctly modern, and so new (a few hundred years old). It is you, then, who are fashioning a doctrine that is not Scripture-based, this because you do not understand the meanings of the words in the language in which they were written. The word "faith" in early twentieth century English does not have the same meaning as the word "pistis" in first century Greek. So too with the words "belief" and "doxa". And the words "symbol" and "sumbolon" (which was frequently used by early Christians as a technical term).

Now, as I say, I was describing the view of infant baptism and belief that was held by early Christians, many of whom were native speakers of the Greek of the NT and not a few of whom were taught by the Apostles themselves. On the one hand I have that. On the other hand, I have a guy writing from Canada who plainly doesn't know Koine all that well telling me that he's got it figured out and that all these early Christians were wrong about Scripture, etc. If this were to be settled in a court of law, and each side was to call its expert witnesses, whom would the court likely certify as expert, the early Fathers or the guy in Canada? Citing Scripture only gets one so far; one has to understand the words that are contained therein in the way they were understood by those who wrote them. If one wants to adhere to Scripture alone, one really is obliged to do the hard work necessary to understand it properly.

Now, I hope my earlier point has been clarified.

[JoeT777]

Where does scripture say….
absolutely no scripture to back up that claim…
I am glad that you do not expect me to accept man's opinion above the word of God. I won't and many others won't either.

You keep forgetting (is this on purpose?), Catholics don’t need to “back-up their claim with Scripture,” even though they can. You do remember that Christ instituted a Church not a Bible. We don’t accept a man’s opinion; Catholics look to the Church; which is exactly why few should respect your interpretations - not to mention that they are most always wrong. The net result (not the only result mind you) is to reduce the “Jim Jones effect” – now, there was a man who knew his Scripture.

JoeT

[De Maria]

Where does scripture say that infant baptism removes the sin nature from a child.

Who said that Baptism removes the "sin nature" of a child?

You don't have children do you?

Sure do.

I note that you have absolutely no scripture to back up that claim. Just your opinion.

I already posted it. 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I am glad that you do not expect me to accept man's opinion above the word of God. I won't and many others won't either.

Are you insinuating that we do?

I am still waiting for any evidence, and you have proven nothing of the sort. Except maybe in your own mind.

Just because you don't believe the evidence doesn't mean the evidence wasn't provided.

Oh boy - here we go again with the false accusations. I guess you are falling back on the tried and true approach when all else fails. It is sad to see that some folk feel it necessary to use such approaches. But the real question here is will you follow the opinions of fallible men, or will will you follow the word of God? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and follow His word.

False accusations? I said:
Quote:
This stuff is 2000 years old.

And I posted the Church Fathers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1786166/posts

You replied:
Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

To any reasonable person that means that you are saying that the Church Fathers which I referenced are heretical. But if I'm wrong, please explain what you really meant.

[De Maria]

Where does scripture say that infant baptism removes the sin nature from a child.

Who said that Baptism removes the "sin nature" of a child?

You don't have children do you?

Sure do.

I note that you have absolutely no scripture to back up that claim. Just your opinion.

I already posted it. 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I am glad that you do not expect me to accept man's opinion above the word of God. I won't and many others won't either.

Are you insinuating that we do?

I am still waiting for any evidence, and you have proven nothing of the sort. Except maybe in your own mind.

Just because you don't believe the evidence doesn't mean the evidence wasn't provided.

Oh boy - here we go again with the false accusations. I guess you are falling back on the tried and true approach when all else fails. It is sad to see that some folk feel it necessary to use such approaches. But the real question here is will you follow the opinions of fallible men, or will will you follow the word of God? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and follow His word.

False accusations? I said:
Quote:
This stuff is 2000 years old.

And I posted the Church Fathers:
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

You replied:
Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

To any reasonable person that means that you are saying that the Church Fathers which I referenced are heretical. But if I'm wrong, please explain what you really meant.

[Tj3]

I posted the actual Scripture so that anyone can see that Jesus was telling Nicodemus about Baptism and then Jesus' disciples began baptizing.

You had to add the baptism references every time to try to bend what it says because it is not in the Bible

In those words. But I posted Scripture which says that Baptism is necessary.

I have seen none. Any that you posted were very easily refited by looking at the context.

Are you conceding that no Scripture says that salvation comes before baptism?

Sigh! We even have you specific examples from scripture of people saved before or without being baptized.

Where does Scripture say that one can't receive the Holy Spirit before Baptism?

See my last post.

All except one.

NONE!

Remember, we believe in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. For us it is enough if the Scriptures imply the doctrine.

Exactly - your denomination adds and mixes the word of man as the basis for your theology. I stick with God's word.

[Tj3]

You keep forgetting (is this on purpose?), Catholics don’t need to “back-up their claim with Scripture,” even though they can.

No one needs to unless they wish to demonstrate that their doctrines are in alignment with God's word.

You do remember that Christ instituted a Church not a Bible.

Are you denying that the Bible is the word of God?

We don’t accept a man’s opinion; Catholics look to the Church;

The church leadership of your denomination are men.

[Tj3]

Who said that Baptism removes the "sin nature" of a child?

Look at your last message.

Sure do.

It didn't seem that you are familiar with their nature.

I already posted it. 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Your private interpretation of this was already refuted.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1439338

Are you insinuating that we do?

You told me that you do.

False accusations? I said:
Quote:
This stuff is 2000 years old.

And I posted the Church Fathers:
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

You replied:
Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

Yep. I was pointing out that many heresies are quite old and age does not make it sound.

Read more carefully.

[Fr_Chuck]

Cut and paste , back and forth again, not going anywhere
Closed